• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paul's hateful letter to the Romans

AvalonXQ said:
No, he really doesn't. This passage, like much of the rest of Romans, uses Greek rather awkwardly and is pretty hard to translate into English, first off.
Second, there are tons of analogies and metaphors that have to be parsed very carefully and whose precise meanings are greatly disputed (and have been for hundreds of years).
Then people try to take the precise phrasing of whatever English translation they have, combine it with their own interpretation/extension of Paul's metaphors, and use it to make sweeping generalizations about God, free will, and salvation. But most of Romans is just not that crystal clear.
Basically, any doctrine that you try to base on these passages rather than other, more direct and clear parts of scripture, is likely not going to hold up very strongly under deeper analysis.

It's nowhere near as bad as what people do to Revelation, but it's the same sort of problem.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah...metaphor...blah blah blah...translation...blah blah blah...need to translate...blah blah blah...need to study more...blah blah blah...deeper analysis...blah blah blah...etc.

Yeah, that Bible sure is truth. Easy to understand too. So glad God made his truth so plain.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
No, none of those things.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, as meaningful for us today as it was ages in the past.

The Bible is a message to all mankind.

Anyone can read the Bible and learn enough to live a good, Christian life, to have a positive relationship with God and with Man.

Like any source of truth, understanding deeper and loftier matters requires more discernment and study. If you want a thorough and accurate understanding of, for instance, God's motivation in creation, the relationship between soteriology and eschatology, or how free will intersects with a divine plan, you're not going to find these with a quick perusal. And since it wasn't written in English, perusing an English translation is even worse.

The Bible is just as vulnerable to quote-mining and intentional misinterpretation as any other substantial text.

I think the most important take-away is this -- none of these difficult matters are necessary for understanding how to be a Christian or how to treat other Christians. A straightforward approach to understanding the Bible yields a straightforward understanding of its core messages. Digging deeper into the Bible requires, not just deeper scrutiny, but deeper genuine study.
Click to expand...





Dear Pastor:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sermons, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'of abomination? Should I smite him? I have to admit I enjoy seafood, especially shrimp, crab, lobster, clams and mussels. Can I still eat these foods or am I already damned?


7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)


I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours,

A Parishioner
 
Elypsis44 said:
Dear Pastor:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sermons, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'of abomination? Should I smite him? I have to admit I enjoy seafood, especially shrimp, crab, lobster, clams and mussels. Can I still eat these foods or am I already damned?


7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)


I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours,

A Parishioner
Click to expand...



:big: :bigclap:
 
Craig, does it occur to you that the book of Romans is not the only book available to understand Christianity?

Some very insightful and interesting comments, nonetheless, by a variety of contributors to this topic.

The apocalyptic strain/meme was running rampant before, during and after Christ's life.

I am not in the least surprised that it influenced Paul's letters. He was human, no matter how deeply inspired.

Romans isn't the only book that will leave the student scratching the old pate.

I find it to be part of the fun.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Craig, does it occur to you that the book of Romans is not the only book available to understand Christianity?
Click to expand...
You're right, of course, but Romans is very important in the history of that religion, as I see it, for these reasons:

Paul is the inventor of Christianity as a separate religion. Without him it would have been merely one of the many messianic Jewish sects then in existence, and would have disappeared along with them.

He set down the principle of veneration of the state, later exploited by Constantine. Christianity was "pre-adapted" by Paul to be an imperial state religion, and if it had not succeeded in becoming one, it would probably have been no more important than Mithraism or Gnosticism in the overall history of religion.

Paul carried apocalypticism (as opposed to mere messianism) to a higher degree than previously seen, and this has been a feature of Christianity ever since. It is in my opinion the most dangerous and unpleasant aspect of that religion - although I agree that by no means all Christians are infected by it.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Craig, does it occur to you that the book of Romans is not the only book available to understand Christianity?
Click to expand...

That is, of course, true. However it IS a part of the New Testament, and from a theological perspective the words of THE apostle commissioned personally by Jesus to bring the New Testament to Gentiles. In the absence of something directly from the (son of) Man, the Legend, Jesus himself, on the topic that would directly contradict Paul I should think that Paul is a pretty big authority on the topic.

And from an atheist perspective, well, Paul IS quoted and read in church more than even, say, the gospel of Mark. So it seems pretty important to me.
 
Here's another bit of weirdness from Romans (Rom. 9:16 - 20a):

So it depends not on upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, a man to answer back to God?

This follows a passage where God says he has always loved Jacob but hated Esau - apparently for no particular reason - and precedes Paul's "vessels of wrath" rant, in which he says that God deliberately creates certain people for the express purpose of damning them to hell for eternity. That pretty well echoes what he says in the passage above: God deliberately and arbitrarily has mercy on some - irrespective of any intention (such as repentance) on their part - and hates others.

So, according to Paul, we're all just a bunch of puppets acting out roles we can't control - God is pulling the strings - but we are still deserving of his condemnation. How did such nonsense ever make into the canon - if it's truly the word of any sort of compassionate God?
 
TimCallahan said:
So, according to Paul, we're all just a bunch of puppets acting out roles we can't control - God is pulling the strings - but we are still deserving of his condemnation. How did such nonsense ever make into the canon - if it's truly the word of any sort of compassionate God?
Click to expand...


Augustine fully advocated it.

Calvin built his entire Calvinist theology on just such verses.

Calvinism is all about predestination (they call it unconditional election).... from it stem many other denominations such as Baptists and Presbyterians etc. and they all believe the same drivel.


To alleviate the feeling of utter futility such theology can engender they tell themselves that if you are righteous then that is proof that you are one of those chosen. But if you sin then that is indisputable proof that you are one of those destined to hell and rightly so since you are sinning.....go figure.
 
Craig B said:
No, he is not necessarily hateful. Perhaps in his personal relations he was admirable, for all I know. But his theology was obnoxious.
Click to expand...


No he was not.... he persecuted Christians and even participated in the killing of Stephen.

He also was commissioned to go persecute other Christians in Damascus….So he was not a nice guy at all.

Also his chameleon personality of being everything to everybody just to dupe/SELL them on the faith is a sign of quite a nasty temperament.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
That is, of course, true. However it IS a part of the New Testament, and from a theological perspective the words of THE apostle commissioned personally by Jesus to bring the New Testament to Gentiles.
Click to expand...
Hans, the "personally commissioned" apostle seems to have been Peter. Paul was not one of the original 12. Granted, his being struck blind was a personal experience of great moment.

He was without a doubt early Christianity's best advocate, in terms of miles traveled and the Word spread. At least, he left a better written record of his advocacy.

(It is my opinion that Peter was illiterate, and his letters dictated or "passed down" until finally written down).

James had the bad fortune to remain in Jerusalem as all went horribly wrong there during the various uprisings against the Romans. With that non-trivial problem to hand, Paul's influence (and predominance) was aided by the Jerusalem faction being inundated with strife in the first generation or so. I also get the feeling that the Jerusalem faction weren't as concerned with how far among the gentiles the Word spread, but there's not a lot to go on.

One wonders how many versions of the "minutes" of the Council of Jerusalem there were, and how many lost thanks to the problems there.

I agree with you that Paul's various letter figure heavily in Christian Doctrine.

All of them.

Cheers.

@Leumas: you need to learn that communication is a two way flow.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Hans, the "personally commissioned" apostle seems to have been Peter. Paul was not one of the original 12. Granted, his being struck blind was a personal experience of great moment.
Click to expand...
Paul had nothing to do with Jesus, except through visions, generated in his imagination.
He was without a doubt early Christianity's best advocate, in terms of miles traveled and the Word spread. At least, he left a better written record of his advocacy. (It is my opinion that Peter was illiterate, and his letters dictated or "passed down" until finally written down).
Click to expand...
None of Jesus' surviving disciples left any record. All the epistles bearing their names are spurious. Paul despised them, and they despised him. None of them advocated "Christianity": they were all observant Jews.
James had the bad fortune to remain in Jerusalem as all went horribly wrong there during the various uprisings against the Romans. With that non-trivial problem to hand, Paul's influence (and predominance) was aided by the Jerusalem faction being inundated with strife in the first generation or so. I also get the feeling that the Jerusalem faction weren't as concerned with how far among the gentiles the Word spread, but there's not a lot to go on.
Click to expand...
That's true. They were all Jews.
One wonders how many versions of the "minutes" of the Council of Jerusalem there were, and how many lost thanks to the problems there.
Click to expand...
We only have Paul's word for the Council, and that of his biographer Luke. But even that tendentious source is unable to disguise the hostility between Paul and James.
I agree with you that Paul's various letter figure heavily in Christian Doctrine. All of them.
Click to expand...
They are the foundation of "Christian doctrine". Jesus and his followers were Jews. Not all the epistles attributed to Paul are authentic.
 
JudeBrando said:
That you hate Paul does not mean Paul is hateful.
Click to expand...

As to whether or not Paul himself was hateful, I'll leave that open for another thread. What I find specifically hateful about the epistle to the Romans is twofold, as I've specifically noted. however, for the sake of review, consider Paul's support of double predestination in Romans 9 and his theology that all governments - including horrible dictatorships - are instituted by God in Romans 13.
 
Quick point. The position that God creates people for the purpose of damning them is called "double predestination" or "reprobation". While I think that is consistent with Romans, most Christians reject that position and instead hold that people are damned by their falled nature and by election are saved.

canon of dordt said:
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
Click to expand...
 
CDHost said:
Quick point. The position that God creates people for the purpose of damning them is called "double predestination" or "reprobation". While I think that is consistent with Romans, most Christians reject that position and instead hold that people are damned by their falled nature and by election are saved.
Click to expand...
Soon, I hope, the monstrous belief that anyone may be damned to eternal punishment for any reason will be entirely abandoned by all Christians. It has been observed that this doctrine is absent from Mark and Q. Nor is it to be found in the Pentateuch, of course.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hans, the "personally commissioned" apostle seems to have been Peter. Paul was not one of the original 12. Granted, his being struck blind was a personal experience of great moment.
Click to expand...

What, you don't believe that Jesus personally talked to him in visions? What kind of a heretic are ye? And look, he even talks to Jesus and gets answers. Brother, let us open the good book at St Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 12, verses 2 to 9:

7. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

8. For this thing I besought the Lord three times, that it might depart from me.

9. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.​

Paul asked something of Jesus, and got an answer. And not as some sign in the heavens or anything. No no no, Jesus says stuff to Paul. And yes, it's one word that's unambiguously ONLY used for saying stuff. All other instances in the NT are clearly about people saying things through speech.

Paul didn't just hallucinate.... err, I mean... have a vision of Jesus speaking to him once. He's doing it again.

And finally, let us hear it from Paul himself:

Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)"

So, yes, he is saying that he has not been commissioned by men, but by Jesus Christ. In fact, his whole gospel is, according to him, not received from anyone else but Jesus Christ personally:

Galatians 1:11-12 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Again, he wasn't just struck blind. No, he obviously gets enough of a message from Jesus to go and preach for 3 years in Arabia before even meeting any other apostle.

Galatians 1:15-17 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

And apparently he has made some claim -- or at least given them reason to think so and ask for proof -- that Christ himself speaks through Paul:

2 Corinthians 13:3 "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you."

Paul handwaves something and doesn't deny it, so we can only conclude that Christ IS still speaking to him.

Still not convinced? Paul's words are no less than the word of God. Not some human version, but verily as it is in truth, the real word of God. Even though he has to say so himself:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

And certainly he doesn't seem to be any lesser than any other apostle in that aspect:

2 Corinthians 11:5 "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles."

Furthermore, oh-la-la, anyone who is a real prophet or spiritual, MUST agree that Paul's stuff is from the Lord. In fact, apparently even the epistles themselves -- or at the very least the mysoginistic views on the same page -- are commandments of the Lord and everyone with any claim to spirituality must agree:

1 Corinthians 14:37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Etc.

Really, I could find a few more verses that show that Paul had his head up his own ass... err, I mean... was commissioned personally by Jesus, received his message directly from Jesus, etc. But I think you get the idea already. He did make the claim to be personally commissioned by Jesus. And as far as I know, most mainstream Christians take that seriously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom